Issues: Defamation,  freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, defamation, satire, editorial responsibility, code of ethics in journalism, censorship, democracy, human rights, incitement of religious hatred, inflammatory acts, hate speech, stereotyping, blasphemy, assimilation, tolerance, respect, freedom of opinion, fight against terrorism, combating extremism, religious rights, legislation to combat defamation of Muslims,  legislation to combat defamation of prophets...

For those interested in research into a legal, or comparative approach:
While you determine the general position you take on this subject, those who would like to be more specific can do research in order to take into account any legal inconsistencies or double standards regarding freedom of expression which weaken arguments that publication of cartoons are protected by freedom of speech. Consider how the crisis could have been better handled by EU countries & EU institutions and by the Muslim world—whether the violence & unorganized Muslim responses around the world might have been different if Muslims and Muslim leaders believed adequate laws protected them against defamation? (Some argue that Europeans have demonstrated more responsibility in not offending religious sentiments associated with the Vatican, or Jews. E.g., laws that prosecute those who deny the Holocaust or alleged Armenian genocide, laws that prohibit the use of free speech to incite violence or hatred, legal protection against racial harassment at work, and other limits to academic freedom, etc. Note example of the boycott of Turkish film "Kurtlar Vadisi--Iraq" which has been described as inciting hatred, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.

THE DEBATE:

Does freedom of expression have any limits? Example: Freedom to yell "Fire" in a cinema.
After initial cartoon publications, was reprinting of cartoons to prove a point intentionally offensive and deliberately provocative?
Did cartoons incite hatred and religious violence? Did cartoons reinforce stereotypes and cause old prejudices to resurface?
Does the foreign media (be specific) have fair and balanced reporting/coverage of the reaction in Muslim countries, or does it tend to focus on enraged minorities against Western values?
Are codes of ethics and legal frameworks consistent? Example: Some European newspapers refuse to print offensive material about Jesus Christ, and laws deter insulting the Vatican.

List other issues of the debate before taking a position.

WHAT RESPONSES HAVE BEEN TAKEN?  Mostly emotional, religious, unorganized, violent (as portrayed in the media).
Declarations that denounce cartoons made by officials of predominately Muslim nations.

WHAT RESPONSES CAN BE TAKEN? More media attention given to rational sound arguments that fairly present all reactions to the cartoon crisis. Legal action. Fighting anti-defamation with coalitions. Organized and nonviolent responses. Global NGO coordination.

EXAMPLES OF STUDENT POSITIONS

See content below for: Students in the News & Examples of Student "LETTERS TO THE EDITOR"

Student newspapers satirize cartoon controversy

The Official University of Manitoba Students' Newspaper Website March 04, 2006
Tessa Vanderhart Staff www.umanitoba.ca

Student newspapers across Canada, like media across the world, have had to make tough editorial decisions about the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.

Some, notably the Strand, the Gateway and the Peak, have chosen to run editorial cartoons on the subject of these highly contentious cartoons. One paper, UPEI’s the Cadre, even chose to print the original cartoons.

Though it appears that students are understandably divided on the issue, editors of these papers — many of them members of the Canadian University Press (CUP), of which the Manitoban is a member — expressed very little regret at what readers of student newspapers across the country have been exposed to in satirical cartoons and editorials.

Nick Ragaz, the managing editor at the Strand, the student newspaper of Victoria College at the University of Toronto, explained his newspaper’s decision to print a cartoon depicting Jesus kissing Mohammed in the “tunnel of tolerance.”

“The question that we had was: do we not publish this? And if not, how do we justify this?” said Ragaz.

The cartoon was a volunteer contribution, passed along from the U of T’s larger student paper, the Varsity.

The Strand considered the offensive nature of the cartoon, but in the end, found “no reasons not to publish” and has received both positive and negative feedback. A letter from the student council accused the paper of an “act of hate” and concerns have also been voiced by the Muslim students’ association on campus.

“Since nobody wants to pull the papers off the stands . . . . I don’t regret it,” he said.

Rather, Ragaz said, the cartoon was published in a genuine effort to promote tolerance, if occasionally misinterpreted.

Both the Canadian Press (CP) and the Toronto Star have written stories about the Strand’s cartoon, CP terming him “defiant and unapologetic.”

But the media attention garnered by the Strand doesn’t compare with attention paid to the Cadre. The University of PEI student newspaper reprinted the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, the first newspaper in Canada to do so.

Cadre editor-in-chief Ray Keating said that the cartoons were printed under the newspaper’s mandate to inform students.

He added that the cartoons were published with the support of the student union, but when the university administration banned distribution of the papers on campus, legal action was threatened. The Cadre is owned by the UPEI students’ union.

“Once we were censored, then it became a free speech issue,” said Keating.

Though they disagree, Keating said the student union and the Cadre are still on good terms. Some councillors later expressed a desire to have been consulted before the issues were pulled from the stands.

Daniel Kaszor, the editor-in-chief of the Gateway at the University of Alberta, made the editorial decision to publish a cartoon along with an editorial on Feb. 7.

In the Gateway’s cartoon, a man in a turban yells, “How dare you say that Muslims are terrorists? I should kill you for that!” in response to: “Freedom of the press means freedom to be a racist chump.”

And while Kaszor knew the cartoon itself was somewhat offensive, the Gateway received no response from it, except garnering an interview from the Edmonton Sun.

“The U of A campus is sort of a strange one, where we can probably get away with murder and no one would notice,” said Kaszor.

He explained that the “hyperbolistic and sort of crazy” cartoon was clearly satire.

“We haven’t really taken a side so much as commented on what was satirized,” he said.

William Wolfe-Wylie, the Atlantic Bureau Chief for CUP, writes a weekly commentary for the Argosy at Mount Allison University. On Feb. 9 the Argosy ran a point/counterpoint on the comics.

“I still don’t think that not publishing the cartoons is a freedom of the press issue. Especially when compared to the ‘professional press,’ I think student newspapers have more freedom than they would like to admit — we can publish pretty much anything at all and get away with it,” said Wolfe-Wylie.

Not only are the original cartoons readily available online, but the issue has become so contentious that Wolfe-Wylie contends that republishing them is less informative than provocative.

“The publication of further cartoons, such as those in the Strand and the Gateway are a contribution to the debate and are a great idea. If student papers wish to contribute to the debate, then an editorial explaining their stance will go further than further incitement.”

Dave Weatherall, the national bureau chief for the CUP, said that each paper has to decide for itself where to stand on the comics.

Still, he noted, there is a reason that student papers have picked up on drawing cartoons themselves.

“The fact that you can write about, but not draw Mohammed probably renders the cartoons more effective,” Weatherall said.

“A little cartoon is very powerful.”

Before circulating the Gateway’s editorial cartoon to CUP papers through its wire service, Weatherall asked elected regional bureau chiefs what they thought. Slightly more than half recommended that the cartoon be shared.

Dock Currie, the opinions editor at the Peak at Simon Fraser University, wanted to run the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, but a last-minute publishing decision led the Peak to instead publish a silhouette of a man with a bomb in his turban.

“I don’t think it provokes any insightful debate; most of the things . . . . about Islamic militancy have been said,” Currie opined.

But, he noted, there is still a reason to publish offensive materials in the Western world.

“Legitimate satire shouldn’t have to worry about being sanctioned or censored by the internal tenets of any religion, or any ‘ism’ at all,” said Currie.

“Student papers should be running stuff like this,” he said. “If you have autonomy from your [student union] and you’re not using it, you’re a waste of paper, in my mind.”

After weeks of violent protest across the Muslim world over a set of cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad printed in European newspapers, the tension over the images has reached the United States.

The decision by a pair of editors to reprint the cartoons in The Daily Illini at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on February 9 has caused an uproar on the campus — and on Wednesday, it cost the students their jobs.

The New York Times reports that Muslim students and supporters held protests on the campus quadrangle on Tuesday saying they were stunned by the paper's publication of the images. From Pakistan to Malaysia, the two-week protests over the comics have resulted in more than a dozen deaths, the torching of European embassies and the burning of effigies of President Bush (see "Muslim Fury Over Danish Cartoons Spurs Riots Across The Globe — Why?").

The Daily Illini staff was so angry that in Wednesday's paper the publisher announced that editor in chief Acton H. Gorton, 25, and the opinions-page editor Chuck Prochaska, 20, had been suspended pending an investigation into how the cartoons made it into the paper.

Most major American newspapers, including The New York Times, have not printed the cartoons, first published in a Danish newspaper last September.

"This has gotten crazy," said Gorton, who decided to run six of the 12 cartoons even though he said he found them "bigoted and insensitive," according to the Times. Gorton said he received calls for his resignation, but quite a bit of praise as well, including comments of support from students as he walked on campus. "We did this to raise a healthy dialogue about an important issue that is in the news and so that people would learn more about Islam. Now, I'm basically fired."

The Illini printed the cartoons on the opinions page next to a column by Gorton explaining why he decided to publish them. Angry calls began coming in the morning the cartoons ran in the Illini. Shaz Kaiseruddin, a third-year law student and president of the Muslim Student Association, told the Times she awoke to a phone call from an angry colleague. "I was in disbelief that they would do this," Kaiseruddin, 24, said, "that our own student-based newspaper would be so ignorant and disrespectful."

The publication of the images has drawn so much ire because any depiction of Muhammad is considered blasphemous and is strictly avoided by Muslims.

The chancellor of the university sent a letter criticizing the paper, which is an independent publication. Richard Herman's letter said, "I believe that the D.I. could have engaged its readers in legitimate debate about the issues surrounding the cartoons' publication in Denmark without publishing them. It is possible, for instance, to editorialize about pornography without publishing pornographic pictures."

Staffers were reportedly furious that Gorton and Prochaska printed the images without properly discussing it with the paper's other top editors. The pair said they followed proper protocol and that anyone working at the paper could have seen the pages before they ran. The Illini ran an apology in light of the uproar and has promised more complete, nuanced coverage of the issue.

But the situation got even more heated on Thursday when the paper ran an opinion piece and a letter to the newspaper alumni blaming the two suspended editors for the publication of the cartoons. According to the Chicago Tribune, the opinion piece repeatedly named the two editors and said they "began planning for these cartoons, without the knowledge of the editorial board and executive team, at least two nights before their publication," going on to say that they didn't act responsibly and "weren't sensitive and tactful" with co-workers. Paper alumni also received an e-mail Thursday from publisher Mary Cory making similar charges.

Gorton's attorney sent a letter calling the paper's comments and Cory's e-mail defamatory and threatened legal action.

Some of the cartoons have been published in papers at the University of Wisconsin, Harvard University, Northern Illinois University and Illinois State University. While a handful of college papers, such as those at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Arizona State University and the University of Arizona, have published their own cartoons that comment on or refer to the controversial cartoons.

The decision to print or not print has set off debates on campuses across the country pitting two of the most dearly held values at universities: freedom of speech and sensitivity to other cultures.

After the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Badger Herald ran the most controversial image on Monday — depicting Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb — officials organized a forum to discuss the issue next week. "Universally, we found the cartoon to be repugnant," Mac VerStandig, the editor in chief of Herald, told the Times. "But we believe that there was a certain endangerment of free speech here, especially given the general prudishness of the American press. We believe our readers are mature enough to look at these images."
— Gil Kaufman

Shades of gray mark debate over decision by Daily Illini
By Bill McClellan
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH   Monday, Feb. 20 2006

The Daily Illini is the student newspaper at the University of Illinois. This
month, the paper published some of the so-called "Prophet cartoons" that have
led to rioting in several countries.

Reaction on campus was swift. The day after the cartoons were published,
Chancellor Richard Herman weighed in on both sides of the issue. He was
saddened the newspaper published these cartoons that he found so offensive and
he disagreed with the decision to do so, but he was certain that the
publication of these cartoons would stir considerable debate and such debate
would leave everyone stronger and wiser. After reading his letter several
times, I figured his toughest decision was whether to sign it "Richard Herman"
or "Herman Richard." Clearly, he is capable of doing it either way.

But maybe I shouldn't make fun of the chancellor. This is not an easy call. My
bosses decided not to run the cartoons. They were joined in that decision by
the overwhelming majority of newspapers in this country and abroad. As the
don't-publish crowd likes to point out, the fact that you have the right to
publish something doesn't mean you have the duty to publish something. Hate
speech is cited. Pornography is cited. Free speech does not negate good taste.

In fact, one of the more interesting letters that ran in the Daily Illini
during the days following the publication of the cartoons came from Matt Vroom,
who graduated last year. He was the author of a comic strip that ran in the
paper. It was called, "I Hate Pam."

"I graduated with a pile of unpublished comics that were deemed too 'offensive'
to run," he wrote. "At one point, I was suspended for a comic's content. . . .
Where was free speech on that one?"

Vroom did not mention the content of the comic strip that led to his
suspension, nor did he give details about any of the comics that were
considered too offensive to publish. But it is probably safe to say that
nothing he drew or wrote would have caused rioting and deaths.

But that is precisely the point, say the let's-publish folks. These cartoons
from Denmark have become an integral part of a big news story. The public ought
to be able to see them. Besides, when people are willing to kill in the name of
a religion, their decision becomes fair game to editorial cartoonists. That's
what a free press in a secular society is all about.

Last Monday, the Daily Illini ran dueling editorials. The first, attributed to
the student editorial board, criticized the two students responsible for the
publication of the cartoons, editor in chief Acton Gorton and Opinions Editor
Chuck Prochaska. "The Daily Illini has been embarrassed by the blatant abuse of
power by both the editor in chief and the opinions editor. We apologize to the
Muslim community as well as the rest of our readership for Gorton's and
Prochaska's actions." Underneath that editorial was a defiant response from
Gorton and Prochaska. They regretted nothing.

On Wednesday, the paper announced that Gorton and Prochaska had been suspended
from their newspaper duties and a student task force had been established to
"investigate the internal decision-making and communication surrounding" the
decision to publish the cartoons.

My daughter, who attends the university, asked me what I would have done had I
been the student in charge of the paper.

I'd have published the cartoons, I said. First of all, I lean to the "free
press-secular society" side of this particular debate, and second, we're
talking about a university campus, and if you can't debate this stuff on a
university campus, where can you?

Besides, as the chancellor would say, debate will make us wiser and stronger.
Or not.

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Two student newspapers at Clemson University have reprinted controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, upsetting Muslim students on campus and drawing a rebuke from the school's president.

The papers, the conservative Tiger Town Observer and the liberal Clemson Forum, are not funded by the school, but the Observer has an on-campus office.

In an open letter e-mailed to Clemson students and staff, President James Barker said he was disappointed that the papers printed the cartoons, which were first published in a Danish newspaper and have sparked deadly riots around the world.

"While I wholeheartedly support freedom of the press and the right of student media to operate independently of administrative oversight and censorship, student journalists must understand that with rights come responsibilities, including the responsibility to be respectful of different faiths and beliefs," Barker wrote. "One of Clemson's goals is to strengthen our sense of community and increase diversity. The publication of these cartoons does nothing to further that goal."

The letter said the cartoons were published in both papers Friday.

Mehmet Babacan, a student from Turkey who is president of Clemson's Muslim Student Association, called the cartoons "disturbing."

"I just can't understand, what's their aim?" he said. "Certainly it's not going to help our community at all to understand each other."

Babacan said the cartoons attack one of Islam's holiest symbols.

"It's just nonsense and meaningless for us," he said. "I'm just feeling depressed."

He said the group planned to issue a formal statement next week.

Muslims believe any image of Muhammad is sacrilegious. One of six cartoons published in the Observer depicts the prophet with a bomb in his turban.

Andrew Davis, editor of the Tiger Town Observer, said the staff agreed unanimously to publish the cartoons because the mainstream media's refusal to print them meant most of the public had not seen the drawings at the center of the controversy.

"We feel it is our duty as journalists to disseminate information to the public," said Davis, a senior political science major from Surfside Beach. "The public is not aware of what these images look like."

He said it was a coincidence that the two papers published the images on the same day. Davis said both papers publish monthly. "This is our first issue since this whole fiasco has begun," he said.

Davis said he understood why Babacan was upset.

"I can understand that he's upset by these. After all, these cartoons are an attack against his religion," he said. "However our aim is to inform the public of what's going on over there."

The Clemson Forum, in an editor's note at the end of a column accompanying the cartoon, said it did not condone "religious intolerance or discrimination."

"While the Forum understands the current severity of this issue, we have merely reproduced these cartoons within an editorial to give individuals an alternate point of view," said the column, which was written by a student identified only as "Peter."

Bill Rogers, executive director of the South Carolina Press Association, said he's aware of only one other newspaper in the state that published any of the cartoons: the Columbia City Paper, a seven-month-old, locally owned weekly.

That paper's publisher, Paul Blake, said he felt the paper had a responsibility to print one of the cartoons to illustrate a column on the topic.

"It was not meant to get any attention," Blake said. "As the alternative press, it's our responsibility to print the things that the mainstream press will not."

Rogers was not surprised that student newspapers chose to publish the images. "Student newspapers are a little bit freer to do things like this, a little freer and more into challenging the status quo," he said.

College administrators warned yesterday of a possible retaliatory response to the publication of the controversial Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in The Harvard Salient. The Salient republished four of the cartoons in its Feb. 8 paper, angering a number of student groups on campus. Despite the concerns within the College, however, outside Johnston Gate today, a homeless-run newspaper has also reprinted two of the cartoons.

Spare Change News decided to publish two of the cartoons on the same day that Associate Dean Judith H. Kidd sent an e-mail to Travis R. Kavulla ‘06-’07, editor of the Salient, warning him that certain communities on- and off- campus could potentially threaten members of the conservative biweekly paper.

“Please be alert to the possibility that some segments of the campus and surrounding communities may be sufficiently upset by the publication of the cartoons that they may become dangerous,” she wrote yesterday in an e-mail obtained by The Crimson.

“Please let HUPD know immediately of any contact with the Salient--e-mail; phone; in person--that appears to be threatening,” she wrote. “The College is concerned for your welfare in light of this action you have taken.”

The e-mail, which Kavulla sent over the Salient open-list, made its way to members of the Harvard Islamic Society through its open-list last night. Undergraduates in the Muslim community characterized Kidd’s e-mail as “unacceptable” and “offensive.”

“If this is the letter in fact that she sent, I find it very concerning that Dean Kidd is buying into the idea that segments of the Muslim community at Harvard could be violent,” President of the Harvard Islamic Society Khalid M. Yasin ’07 said. “We’ve always promoted dialogue and discussion. For her to jump to the conclusion is extremely insulting and very offensive.”

“I was really surprised and offended when I read the e-mail because I just felt it was totally uncalled for, because she basically intimated that the Muslim community at Harvard would become violent,” Huma Farid ’06, who is a member of the Harvard Islamic Society, said last night. “To even hint that we’d become violent when we’ve never shown an inclination of that sort—it is just really offensive to be thought of in that manner.”

Kidd said her e-mail to the editors of the Salient yesterday was sent “out of concern for the students.” It was not a judgment on their decision to publish the cartoons, she added.

“Students’ publications have the right of free press,” said Kidd in a phone interview yesterday.

The republication of the cartoons in a number of European papers over the past few weeks has resulted in world-wide protests, some of which have turned violent.

Protestors have torched Danish embassies in Beirut and Damascus, and a boycott of Danish products is picking up momentum in the Muslim world.

Kavulla said he understood the rationale behind Kidd’s e-mail, citing issues of liability and safety.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if her words were interpreted by some Muslim students in a negative way,” he said. “Her worry is overwrought.”

“I think Dean Kidd is being overly cautious,” said Rami R. Sarafa ‘07, the former president of the Harvard Society of Arab Students.

SPEAKING OUT FOR CHANGE

While mostly conservative-leaning papers have published the cartoons, including The Salient and The New York Sun, editors of Spare Change News decided to publish them within the context of civil liberties.

“Freedom of speech is an important right for all people in the world to have,” said Sam J. Scott, editor of the newspaper and executive director of the Homeless Empowerment Project (HEP). “Whenever it is threatened, journalists especially should be outraged.”

For Scott, who said he identifies Spare Change News as a non-partisan newspaper, publishing the cartoons was an issue of social justice.

“We are the only Boston newspaper that focuses on social justice issues,” he said, emphasizing Spare Change’s work with poverty, homelessness, and civil liberties.

“We agreed that this was something that we needed to do out of principle,” Scott said. “How could we not criticize other newspapers for not doing that?”

Yasin said he was also offended by the decision to publish the cartoons in Spare Change, a move that he said was irresponsible and offensive to certain ethnic groups.

“This is not a question of freedom of speech,” Yasin said. “There’s a difference between legal rights and what is moral to do.”

Sarafa said he disagreed with Spare Change’s decision to publish the cartoons.

Anyone can easily view the cartoons on the Internet or in the various newspapers that have already published them, Sarafa added.

“Either you want to garner negative attention or garner negative discourse,” Sarafa said. “Or you want attention.”

But President of the Harvard Democrats Eric P. Lesser ’07 characterized each newspaper’s decision to publish the cartoons as completely different.

“The consistent history the Salient has is of pushing the envelope on purpose,” Lesser said. “I don’t think Spare Change has any history of that.”

Lesser pointed to the way in which each newspaper chose to publish the cartoons, stressing the context and history each one brought to the cartoons.

“These are two very different papers that come at issues with very different perspectives,” he said.

Spare Change News is a biweekly newspaper produced by HEP, a Cambridge-based organization that provides opportunities for homeless people to earn their own income.

Scott said that The Salient’s decision to publish the cartoons may arise out of partisan leanings.

The Salient may feel comfortable publishing the cartoons because “a lot of conservatives have anti-Islam sentiments,” Scott said.

“Liberals tend to be more culturally sensitive to minorities,” he added. “They don’t want to risk being offensive or anti-PC.”

Alongside the cartoons, Spare Change published an editorial that stated its purpose in running the images that has since sparked world-wide violence.

“Spare Change News advocates for social justice, and having freedom of speech—even that which makes fun of religion—is one of the rights all people should enjoy,” the editorial reads.

“Newspapers in general—and alternative ones like [Spare Change] and the Phoenix in particular—must reprint the cartoons in defense of free speech as well,” the editorial published today continues. “To do otherwise is to cower before fear and intimidation, and that is the complete antithesis of everything newspapers and journalists are supposed to stand for.”

—Staff writer Shifra B. Mincer can be reached at smincer@fas.harvard.edu

MSU Student Site Draws Criticism for Posting Danish Cartoons

By Miki Johnson Miki Johnson (mjohnson@editorandpublisher.com)
 
Published: February 28, 2006 12:52 PM ET

NEW YORK An online newspaper run by a professor and students from Michigan State University's journalism school drew criticism from Muslim groups yesterday for posting several of the Danish cartoons that have sparked controversy in recent weeks.

The SpartanEdge, which is paid for and overseen by MSU new media instructor Bonnie Bucqueroux but is not affiliated with the university, posted late Sunday a box at the top of its home page with a photograph of Muslim protesters in Europe burning a Danish flag and the words, "Those infamous Danish cartoons -- it’s your choice. Click here to see what the furor is all about -- or don't, if you would be offended."

The online publication of the four cartoons -- one of which depicts the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb as his turban -- sparked complaints from the group Muslims and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Dawud Walid, its director, called the cartoons offensive and asked that they be taken down, according to a story yesterday in the Detroit Free Press. Bucqueroux told E&P by e-mail that she and Walid had spoken and now "agree to disagree."

Bucqueroux also said, in an action by the university's Muslim Students' Association, organized before but cemented by the SpartanEdge's publication of the cartoons, about a dozen students protested outside the Administration Building today.

The cartoons appear in the SpartanEdge's "Free Speech Issue," which is slated to be online for about two weeks. The issue also includes a feature story about free speech issues brought up by preachers on campus and counter-protests, along with an "Edgitorial" by editor Alexander Scott defending the decision to post the cartoons. "Admittedly, the print and broadcast media do have a rationale for not showing the comics: anyone who tunes in or flips the pages would be forced to see the evil cartoons and that person could be offended by it," Scott writes. "SpartanEdge.com has the advantage of the Internet. We have the ability to show the images to people who consciously click the link to the page containing them."

The editorial letter has so far sparked 28 comments, ranging from strong support of the cartoon's publication to its characterization as a ploy for media attention. Bucqueroux defends the cartoons' publication in her own "Publisher's Blog," stating "When the SpartanEdge.com editorial board decided this week to publish a handful of the Danish cartoons, a voice inside me cheered. There’s a reason for that Edge in the name -- the young people attracted to this publication are passionate about free speech issues. And I am proud to provide them a platform for their views."

SpartanEdge went live Jan. 16 and has courted controversy from its earliest days. E&P reported in January about its Spartanette blog, which drew concerns from professors and administrators that readers would not understand the delineation between the blog's opinionated writing and the rest of the site's "traditional journalism." Bucqueroux and the staff of students envision the site as a "sand box" for students to explore and develop new Web publishing techniques.

Protests at UNC against anti-Muslim cartoons

By Julie Southerland | March 3, 2006 | Page 11

GREENSBORO, N.C.--Protesters occupied the offices of the student newspaper at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill February 20 following the paper’s publication of racist anti-Muslim cartoons.

Letter to the Editor

Muslims' anger over derogatory cartoons depicting prophet justified

Abdullah J. Zakariya / Graduate student / Electrical Engineering major

Posted: 2/13/06 www.beaconnewspaper.com

I was reading the article, "Muslim Communities Overreacts to Danish Comic Strip," regarding the Danish comic strip and how the Muslim community overreacted to that. As Muslims we have certain beliefs regarding all religions. The Muslim community would have been disgusted just as much if these cartoons represented other religious figures from other religions.

The disturbing part of the matter is that people today look over all Muslims as terrorists and Islam as a religion is the source. The reason that people felt offended by these cartoons is that the cartoons pictured Islam as a terrorist religion by emphasizing Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist.

How would other religions feel if that was the case to their religious figures? I do not want to justify the burning of the consulates and fatal demonstrations, which is mostly done by some uneducated people, because this is the minority percentage of the whole Islamic world. In addition, it is wrong to face this problem in such a way.

However, free speech should not be exercised in such a racist way, showing that a group of people are all terrorist based on religion; whereas, in fact, other issues like the Holocaust were mentioned once by one of the leaders and the matter escalated all the way to the United Nations.

So it is racist to mention that, but such cartoons are not! How would people feel if these cartoons targeted Christian or Jewish religious figures? Wouldn't they feel the same? Again, that does not justify what was done over the matter. I think the Muslim world lost a lot of its ground on a just case by having some irresponsible acts by some unofficial parties.

Furthermore, I think the writer exaggerated by foreseeing a war on countries by terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which is a group fighting for their invaded land in Lebanon. I think that if someone wants to exercise this right, real terrorists should be targeted not religious figures.

Cartoons continue to evoke debate

Student group holds daylong events to raise awareness about Muslim perspective

The State News By MAGGIE LILLIS

STUDENTS MAKE HEADLINE NEWS
Opinion Article March 2006 www.statenews.com

Free speech has limits; Muslims ask for respect, don't impose beliefs

Syed Mehdi Jafri

On Tuesday, the MSU Muslim Students' Association peacefully protested the publication of the caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist.

Students engaged in discussions over the issue and later that night the MSA hosted a question-and-answer session with a student panel to help answer questions that the MSU/East Lansing community had.

A common question brought up was why Muslim religious leaders or clerics don't condemn violence and terrorism.

The answer is simple: They do.

The leading Shia and Sunni (the two major sects of Islam) scholars have condemned such terrorism. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, strongly condemned the suicide terrorist attacks on Sept. 11: "Mass killings of human beings are catastrophic acts which are condemned, wherever they may happen and whoever the perpetrators and the victims may be."

The Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, also condemned the killing of civilians in the attacks, considering it a gruesome act: "It's not courage in any way to kill an innocent person or to kill thousands of people, including men and women and children."

Now the question we should be asking ourselves is why isn't this information known? Why is it that these two reputable scholars of the Islamic faith have issued statements which are not readily available to us here in America? Has anyone ever heard either of these men quoted unless it was against Israel? How can we know if Muslim scholars condemn terrorism and violence if they aren't given the means to express their views on the issue?

These are all areas of serious concern that must be addressed.

Some see the cartoons as strictly a freedom of speech issue and say that any sort of restriction is a violation of our inalienable rights.

To that I point out that even in the West, there are restrictions to freedom of speech. One recent example was in Austria, where British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison for denying the Holocaust.

I'm not saying that I agree with his views. My point is that even in the West, there are limits on freedom of speech.

Some people are confused about what all the fuss is about. It's just a cartoon right? The reality is that it's deeper than just a cartoon; it's associating the prophet of our religion as a terrorist.

Muslims believe that any depiction of any prophet, not just Muhammad but Jesus and Moses as well, is prohibited, even if it's a positive depiction. This issue has been portrayed in the media as a clash of cultures — Islam v. the West — and that Islam does not promote freedom or tolerance.

This couldn't be further from the truth. We believe in freedom, but not at the cost of breaching our religion.

Bonnie Bucqueroux, the MSU journalism instructor associated with a Web site that published the cartoons, claims it was done to broaden the community's discussion on the issue. Although I agree that we should have discussions on the issue, the publication of such images is unnecessary.

In the modern press, certain images of offensive nature aren't published, such as mutilated bodies from Iraq or images mocking the Holocaust because so many will be offended. There are times when good taste is necessary and when respect for your fellow human beings sometimes trumps freedom of speech.

Certain individuals might feel that they are not obligated to abide by Islamic ruling and they have the right to produce blasphemous images as they please. But the issue isn't about imposing Islamic laws on the West, it comes down to an issue of respect for one's religion and beliefs.

Ridiculing our prophet is the biggest insult that anyone can land on the Muslim world. It is seen to us as hate speech against our religion and our people.

One point that I would like to stress is that on any issue, we should be educated about both sides. The best way to solve these cultural clashes is to be informed about the cultures and religions involved.

In the case of Islam, one such source of education is the Muslim Students' Association. We promote the spread of knowledge and understanding of Islam on the MSU campus, and we invite non-Muslims and Muslims alike to come discuss issues regarding Islam. For more information, visit
Muslim Students' Association of Michigan State University www.msamsu.com.

Syed Mehdi Jafri is a physiology junior and MSU Muslim Students' Association political chair. Reach him at jafrisye@msu.edu

Excerpt from www.kansan.com

Letter to the Editor: Cartoons example of religious bigotry, not free speech

We must recognize that these cartoons are not a matter of free speech, they’re religious bigotry and intolerance.

If our society places limitations on speech which hurts and offends people who suffered from the Holocaust or is disrespectful to those mourning loved ones in a funeral, why does it allow and even support other forms of speech which is purposefully designed to hurt, offend, and further isolate nearly 1.5 billion Muslims world wide? This tells me, as a Muslim and as an American, that my religious beliefs are not worth considering much less worth respecting.

— Ali Agha for the Muslim Student Association

Letters to the Editor www.sanfordherald.com

Stand up for freedom

How is it that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and apparently now the UNC Muslim Students Association (MSA) are able to force “sharia” law on us Americans? Since when has the media been sensitive to people of faith by not publishing the so-called offensive cartoons depicting Muhammad?

Yet our federally funded National Endowment for the Arts contributed to the desecration of a crucifix upside down in a jar of urine, supported the display of a portrait of the Virgin Mary with animal feces smeared on it and financed a play depicting Jesus and his disciples as “gay.”

All of these vile depiction's of Christianity received critical acclaim and publicly acknowledge by our media for all to see! How compassionate of our media to display such images hurtful and offensive to members of the Christian community and yet the American media is so willing to cave to the modern fascists demand of “censorship” by not printing the so-called caricatures of Muhammad.

How is it that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has a Muslim Student Association? Didn't the UNC elite's openly oppose a Christian student organization because it is not “inclusive” of non-Christians, gays and other sexually confused people?

Does the UNC MSA embrace students of other faiths, Christians, Hindus and Jews? Does the MSA embrace the gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-gendered or sexually confused students of UNC? How does the MSA reconcile the sharia law as it pertains to the treatment of infidels and homosexuals? Does the MSA prefer beheading, stoning or hanging of those convicted, under sharia law, of homosexuality? How does the UNC vice-chancellor for student affairs address these obvious conflicts in the UNC policy of embracing of all of “diversity's perversities?” Yet we read that the MSA is threatening to cause a riot over this nonsense. What ever happened to the “religion of peace?” I certainly hope someone is listening to their phone calls and reading their emails. Our support and thanks should go to The Daily Tar Heel editor and staff for standing up for freedom! The rest of the media are just gutless hypocrites! 

KIRK D. SMITH

Sanford